fixpafandomcom-20200216-history
Rail-plank-Watt
Eileen Watt’s Statement on the Proposal for a Commuter Train and Alternative Solutions :Source, candidate site, harvested in May, 2006 As I have stated in the past, we all agree that traffic on the Allegheny Valley Expressway is congested and becoming worse. Something must be done, but I don’t believe a train is our solution. The estimated cost just to start up such a project has been projected to be between $20-$40 million. This would be on top of the estimated $5-$10 million necessary to operate train service each year, putting the first year price tag at $25 to $40 million. That’s $25 to $40 million over and above the amount currently budgeted for transportation in our region in just the train’s first year. This is a huge amount of money that could be placed on the backs of the taxpayers. I am especially troubled by the ongoing operating costs that could require taxpayers to subsidize those few people who choose to ride the train. Many forget the fact that this concept was already tried in our county once before and it failed. Just 17 years ago in 1989, due to a direct lack in riders and bloated costs, the Mon Valley train was closed. This train ran directly downtown to Grant Street. The current proposal calls for a train that would require riders to make multiple transfers by bus before they could get downtown. If the train in 1989 failed, in part, due to a lack of riders, how can a train that is even less user-friendly succeed? In fact the Port Authority itself describes the previous train’s failure on their website this way, “This commuter rail service to the Mon Valley was eliminated after a detailed analysis and rider survey showed there was no practical way to reduce the train’s high taxpayer subsidies. Ridership on the train, which had been operated by CSX Transportation, Inc. under contract to the Authority since 1975, decreased by 50 percent after 1982. The subsequent loss in revenue, combined with high labor and insurance costs, resulted in annual deficits of more than $1.3 million and an operating subsidy of $6.63 per passenger – more than seven times greater than the average subsidy paid for other Authority riders. (source: http://www.portauthority.org/grow/pghistory.asp) A train would require numbers of new county taxpayer funded employees, electronic equipment and engine maintenance, fuel, building upkeep, electricity costs and printing expenses for schedules. Not to mention the ongoing cost of bus drivers and busses to shuttle people from the Park N Ride to the train and from the end of the line to centers downtown, which is clearly not user friendly. With the Port Authority already in serious financial trouble I believe our priorities as elected leaders and candidates need to be focused on getting our current transportation fiscal house in order before we add new expenses to the books. And with the Mon Valley train having been closed after cost overruns, a new train has the potential as a financial problem waiting to happen. Well intentioned supporters argue that the proposed train would take 300-600 cars off Route 28 each day. However, with over 60,000 cars traveling Route 28 each and every day, even the best case scenario this would only eliminate 1% of cars that currently travel our roadways. Supporters are now trying to justify the need for a train by pointing to the 5-year planned construction that will take place on Rt 28. However, there is a better, more fiscally responsible way to reduce the number of vehicles on the road during this period. My solution would be to take the already existing public bus transportation network and enhance and encourage ridership by reducing fairs up and back along Rt. 28 during PEAK hours during the 5 year construction. By taking $1 off the fair each way, many people would opt to ride the bus and reduce the number of vehicles on this roadway. The Port Authority stated, after the removal of the previous Mon Valley train, “Three new express bus routes were added to the Mon Valley corridor, and ridership on the buses has exceeded PATrain ridership.” (see website source above). I believe, with proper incentives, we could increase both short and long term bus ridership to reduce congestion on Rt. 28. If 2,000 cars are removed off of 28 during the construction, due to increased bus ridership, the total cost to the taxpayers would only be $1 million a year or $5 million over the 5 years of construction. This is significantly less than the $45-$80 million of start up and operational costs of a train over five years. More importantly, the taxpayers would not be stuck paying for a train bill when the Rt. 28 construction is completed. By providing these funds directly to the Port Authority we would help promote using our public transportation system that is already in place, a system that has struggled financially. I believe we would eliminate more vehicles off Route 28, we would ensure the stability of the jobs that already exist within our Port Authority and increase additional jobs for bus drivers and maintenance workers. We would increase ridership on our existing public transportation network, riders that might stay with the bus system even after the 5 year construction period. This solution would save taxpayers of Allegheny County and Pennsylvania $40 - $75 million verses the cost of the train. I believe that is a fiscally responsible solution for the taxpayers. We all want to solve our transportation problems in Allegheny County. Going down the same road that we went down before and throwing good money after bad is not the solution. What we need is a commonsense approach. Links * Eileen Watt * Rail * Transportation Watt